Dangerous thoughts about glass, and a couple of questions

Boris Liberman boris71 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 01:11:44 EDT 2009


William Robb wrote:
> I recall posting about this just after I got my first 77. I thought it 
> was an amazing lens for general photography, but I absolutely hated it 
> for portraiture.
> After looking at many pictures that I shot with it, I decided that what 
> I didn't like was, for lack of clearer terminology, it had too much 
> microcontrast, and was just too damned sharp.

Interestingly enough, yesterday I shot a couple of Galia's portraits 
with FA 31 Ltd at f/3.5 from distance of 2 meters or so. I had to dial 
-17 of clarity because pictures were too sharp. Notably, K-7 focused 
extremely precisely in rather low light of just two 60W tungsten lamps.

Mind you, at -17 clarity there is no post-processing soft effect 
whatsoever. Pictures look very sharp even then.

> The 31 shares a lot of similarities with the 77, high sharpness, lots of 
> contrast and excellent out of focus rendering.

Yes, when I started with FA limited, I often said that the lenses 
compensated nicely for lack of my skill... They probably do so today as 
well.

Boris




More information about the PDML mailing list